Yvette Cooper: The Deputy Prime Minister has today placed copies of his response to the Law Commission's report: "Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code" in both Libraries of the House and has also placed the response on the ODPM website www.odpm.gov.uk/planning-information. The Commission presented their report to Parliament in two parts: on Compensation (Law Com No 286) in December 2003 and on Procedures (Law Com No 291) in December 2004.
	In 2000 the Compulsory Purchase Policy Review Advisory Group (CPPRAG) had recommended changing the compulsory purchase of land powers, procedures and compensation arrangements. The most pressing changes were put in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and included strengthening local authority powers to acquire land for the creation of sustainable communities as well as making the compensation fairer to those losing their land.
	CPPRAG also proposed the Government should work with the Law Commission on how to replace the whole of the current raft of statute and case law on compulsory purchase and compensation by a single statute expressed in modern language. ODPM and its predecessor Departments (DETR and DTLR), along with the Welsh Assembly Government, have been working on this with the Commission since 2000.
	Although the Commission's recommendations identify a basic framework for reforming the structure of the law, they do not set out the detailed provisions needed to ensure fairness to those affected, as well as speed and simplicity. The ever-evolving complexity of the statute and case law has shown that these aims cannot always easily be reconciled. As the Law Commission have demonstrated, there are no quick and easy solutions and moving towards a simpler and more readily accessible set of laws would still require substantial further work.
	The Government would like to have a single simple compulsory purchase code expressed in modern English. But finding further legislative time for this needs to be balanced against the Government's many other priorities. Given the changes providing immediate and tangible improvements were in the 2004 Act, implementing the Law Commission's proposals is not a practicable proposition for the foreseeable future.
	The Government consider it more important to maintain a stable legislative framework providing certainty both for acquiring authorities and for those whose properties may need to be acquired. This should encourage acquiring authorities to exercise their compulsory purchase powers wherever this makes sense in the public interest to further their wider policy objectives.

Phil Woolas: The Government have today published a Discussion Paper about standards of conduct in English local government. It sets out our vision for a future comprehensive conduct regime for local authority members and employees. Such a regime would need to be part of our future strategy for local government, and hence this is published as part of the ongoing local vision debate begun by the Government last year.
	The Paper incorporates the Government's response to the recommendations on conduct in local government in Chapter three of the 10th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Graham Committee). It also incorporates our response to the report of the ODPM Select Committee on the role and effectiveness of the Standards Board for England, as well as a response to the recommendations of the Board itself following its review of the code of conduct for members.
	We have largely accepted the recommendations of the Graham Committee; in particular its central recommendation for a more locally based decision-making process for the conduct regime. Accordingly, we have not accepted the recommendation of the ODPM Select Committee to maintain the present centralised regime for handling allegations of misconduct by members. We have, however, largely accepted the other recommendations made by the Select Committee.
	The Paper also indicates the approach the Government are minded to follow on the conduct of employees, in particular on the political restrictions which apply to local government employees, the pay of political assistants and a code of conduct for employees. In reaching these views, the Government have had regard to the responses received to the consultation that the Office undertook on these issues last year.
	We believe that the approach set out in the Paper would both deliver a clearer and more proportionate conduct regime for local government members and employees, and ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in those who serve them. We now intend to work with the Standards Board and other stakeholders to carry forward the changes identified in the Paper, having regard to any comments and debate the Paper itself generates. The Government recognise that certain of these changes would require primary legislation and it intends to seek this at the next convenient opportunity Parliamentary time allows.
	Copies of the Paper have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Ruth Kelly: I am today, with my right hon. friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, presenting to the House a document setting out our strategy to help reduce re-offending through improved skills and employment opportunities for offenders.
	The Government will publish in the new year a five-year strategy for reducing re-offending and protecting the public. This will emphasise the importance of punishment and deterrence in preventing offending. But it will also recognise the need to deal with the range of factors which lead some offenders into a cycle of repeat offending. This cycle carries a considerable cost to the Exchequer: a re-offending former prisoner costs the criminal justice system an average of £65,000 up to the point of re-imprisonment and £37,500 each year in prison. On top of this, there are often unquantifiable costs to the victims of crime and their communities.
	An important part of the Government strategy are a concerted drive to transform the skills and employment prospects of offenders. The challenge is stark. A majority of offenders have poor skills, with over half having no qualifications at all. Nearly half have experienced exclusion from school. Two thirds were unemployed before prison.
	Evidence suggests that employment and a reduction in re-offending are linked, and that stability and quality of employment are key factors. Accordingly, there is a strong case, as part of our wider strategy, for seeking to get more offenders into jobs, and to raise their skill levels in order to improve their chances of becoming more productive and successful in employment, to the benefit of individuals, their families, and the wider society that would be damaged by continued offending.
	A great deal of progress has been made in recent years. Increased investment has raised the capacity of the prison education service, and improved basic skills training for offenders in the community. Achievement of qualifications in literacy, language and numeracy has more than doubled since 2001. Prisons are subject to the same demanding standards of external inspection as other education providers, and this is driving up quality. Jobcentre Plus offers employment and training advice to offenders in prisons and, with the help of additional Prison Service investment, in 2004–05 there were over 41,000 cases in which an offender leaving prison went directly into employment, training or education.
	But there is more to do. Inspection evidence tells us that the quality of learning and skills in prisons is still too often inadequate, and unresponsive to individual needs. We need more coherence in assessment, planning and continuity between different settings, for example when prisoners are moved at short notice, or released into the community. We also need to do better in engaging and motivating particular groups of offenders to improve their skills. Opportunities for education and training must lead to skills and qualifications that are meaningful for employers and to real job opportunities.
	We intend to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the sentencing reforms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003—which make rehabilitation one of the statutory purposes of sentence—together with the creation of the National Offender Management Service, to build a new approach. The strategy is set out in the document, "Reducing Re-offending Through Skills and Employment".
	The document sets out the case for action and outlines a radical vision to make a step change in four main areas:
	to focus strongly on jobs for offenders, with employers driving the design and delivery of programmes, and new approaches to get offenders into work;
	to ensure that training providers and colleges are better able to provide the skills offenders need to get a job;
	to promote a new emphasis on skills and jobs for offenders across prisons and probation services; and
	to motivate and engage offenders, through a new "employability contract", with a strong emphasis on rights and responsibilities.
	Some action can begin at once. In other areas we propose to test new approaches in order to make the best use of the resources and capacity within the system. We look forward to the widest possible debate—with employers, with the learning and skills sector, and with colleagues working in prisons, probation and in jobcentres.
	This may in the past have been an area of education and training that has had a low profile. Along with my right honourable friends I am determined that we should set a new ambition: to provide more offenders with the tools and motivation to turn away from crime and become employable and productive members of society.

Margaret Beckett: On 26 October, I announced an independent review of the UK's avian quarantine system. The review panel, chaired by Professor Nigel Dimmock, Emeritus Professor of Virology at Warwick University, examined the avian quarantine system as a whole.
	The independent review group has concentrated on the principles of the system, assessed how effective it is and given recommendations about how it might be improved.
	I have now received Professor Dimmock's report and I copies are available in the House Libraries.
	The main conclusions include:
	Imports of captive birds should be permitted to continue. However, existing quarantine procedures should be improved to further reduce the risk, and should be kept under review.
	Because imports into the EU are governed by EU rules, and movements within the Community are less rigorously controlled, the health protection provided by avian quarantine of imported captive birds can only be achieved if action is taken at EU level.
	Avian flu and Newcastle disease present little risk to public health, and if the modified quarantine system were operating throughout the EU the risk from imports of captive birds would be negligible.
	My Department will study the reports findings carefully, including the associated costs and benefits of each of the findings. The work will be taken forward in partnership with the EU and stakeholders, and the appropriate action will be taken as quickly as possible.

Charles Clarke: On 5 August, my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, announced a 12 point plan of measures designed to tackle terrorism. This statement sets out the very significant progress which has been made since that time. We will report again to Parliament on further progress before the summer recess.
	1. To introduce new grounds for deportation and exclusion (including the drawing up of lists of extremist bookshops etc, engagement of which would trigger deportation; the negotiation of "Memoranda of Understanding" with relevant countries; and consultation on the introduction of non-suspensive appeals in respect of deportation).
	The Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have worked closely together to identify extremists overseas who pose a threat to the UK and I have already excluded a number of individuals from the UK.
	Work is underway to put together similar list of individuals in the UK and we are reviewing the processes and mechanisms already in place for gathering national information on extremist activity. In respect of bookshops, the Terrorism Bill will make it illegal to disseminate material that may incite or be useful to terrorists.
	"Memoranda of Understanding" have been concluded with Jordan and Libya and good progress is being made with other priority countries to which we wish to deport people. Notices of intention to deport where we would need to rely on assurances from the receiving state have been served on 29 individuals whose presence has been assessed to be a threat to national security. Most are detained pending the outcome of their appeal; four have been released on bail. It remains the position that we would consider legislation if legal obstacles were to arise in the process.
	Following consultation with opposition parties, a provision has been included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which provides that in national security deportations any in country appeal would be confined to ECHR issues and that matters of national security could be challenged only after the individual had been removed.
	2. To create an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism, anywhere, not just in the UK.
	The Terrorism Bill now proceeding through Parliament contains many important measures that will assist the law enforcement and security agencies in the fight against terrorism, including the introduction of a new offence of glorifying terrorism in the UK or abroad.
	3. To refuse asylum in this country automatically to anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere.
	A provision has been included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which will allow us to deny asylum while respecting our obligations under the Refugee Convention.
	4. To consult on extending the powers to strip citizenship, applying them to British citizens engaged in extremism, and making the procedures simpler and more effective.
	Following consultation with opposition parties, provisions now included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will, if passed, replace one of the existing criteria for deprivation of citizenship—that the person concerned "has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom"— with a test of the public interest. If passed, the Bill will additionally confer on the Secretary of State a power to remove a person's right of abode in the UK, again on "conducive" grounds, where this right derived from citizenship of a Commonwealth country other than the United Kingdom.
	5. To consult on setting a maximum time limit for all future extradition cases involving terrorism.
	Work is underway in consultation with Her Majesty's Court Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. This will involve better co-ordinating the responsibilities of all agencies with the aim of speeding up every stage of the process short of putting the case at risk or compromising fairness. Rashid Ramda has now been extradited and we will continue to prioritise cases such as these.
	6. To examine a new court procedure to allow a pre-trial process: and examine whether the necessary procedure can be brought about to give us a way of meeting the police and security service request that detention, pre-charge of terrorist suspects, is significantly extended.
	We are currently examining ways of allowing more sensitive evidence, specifically evidence derived from intercept, to be produced in court. The Government have accepted the decision of the House of Commons that the maximum period of pre-charge detention should be extended to 28 days.
	7. To extend the use of control orders for those who are British nationals and cannot be deported.
	To date a total of 17 control orders have been made of which nine have been revoked because the individuals who were the subject of the orders are now detained under immigration powers pending deportation. Eight orders are therefore currently in force, one of which is in respect of a British national.
	8. To expand the court capacity necessary to deal with control orders and other related issues. The Lord Chancellor will increase the number of special judges hearing such cases.
	The Department for Constitutional Affairs is reviewing the capacity of the courts, specialist tribunals and the judiciary to deal with existing and anticipated caseload relating to terrorism, with a view to meeting the demands of counter-terrorism.
	The judiciary have been very supportive of our efforts to improve the efficiency of terrorism-related trials. They have put in hand new procedures for the allocation, handling and case management of such trials. Her Majesty's Court Service is making an additional suitable court room available.
	9. To proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al Muiahiroun, and to examine the ground for proscription to widen them and put forward proposals in the new legislation.
	The Terrorism Bill widens the criteria for proscription. The list of proscribed organisations will be reviewed on the basis of the new Bill.
	10. To review the threshold for the acquisition of British citizenship to make sure that it is adequate, and to establish with the Muslim community a commission to advise on how there is better integration of those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated.
	The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will extend the requirement to be "of good character", which presently applies only to those seeking citizenship by naturalisation, to all applicants for citizenship except those relying on a provision in the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I will establish a Commission drawing on representatives of all faiths and communities and have written to faith leaders for their views on membership and terms of reference. I intend to make an announcement on this matter early in the new year.
	In addition, my Department continued to work with representatives of the Muslim community, culminating in the announcement of a number of important initiatives including:
	the creation of a National Advisory Council on Mosques and Imams;
	the training and accreditation of imams; and
	placing a greater emphasis on citizenship training for children attending madrassahs.
	11. To consult on a new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a centre for fomenting extremism, and to consult with Muslim leaders in respect of those clerics who are not British citizens to draw up a list of those not suitable to preach and who will be excluded from our country in the future.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website the responses to the consultation paper "Preventing Extremism Together: Places of Worship" which was issued on 6 October. We received 66 responses in total, from a range of individuals, and representative national faith and law enforcement organisations. I am grateful to everyone who submitted views.
	Respondents were clear that strengthening police and community partnership was the most effective way of dealing with the problem of extremism at places of worship, emphasising in particular greater exploitation of existing police channels by communities to report extremist behaviour earlier, citizenship training and, as was emphasised in the response Association of Chief Police Officers, the earlier use of existing legislation and operational techniques by law enforcement agencies.
	This commitment to joint working and information sharing, alongside the provisions to tackle extremism in the Terrorism Bill and the positive recommendations that emerged from the "Preventing Extremism Together" report published on 10 November, represents a coherent package of action and, consequently, I will not seek to legislate on this issue at the present time, although we will keep the matter under review.
	A database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated unacceptable behaviour is being developed.
	12. To bring forward the proposed measures on the security of our borders with a series of countries specifically designated for biometric visas over the next year; and to compile an international database of those individuals whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain's security—anyone on the database will be excluded from entry with any appeal only taking place outside the country.
	Embarkation controls were immediately introduced as a response to terrorists attacks in London. Fixed controls were introduced at major ports in support of Special Branch. The Immigration Service has the ability to re-establish a fixed embarkation control at one hour's notice in case of urgent operational need.
	Over the next five years, e-Borders will transform our immigration control. Using new technology we will develop an integrated system to check travellers before they enter the UK and to prevent travel to those who have no right to enter or who are known security threats. E-Borders will also enable us to take appropriate actions against passengers of interest to each of the border agencies, and to collect information on when people arrive and whether they leave.
	With this approach we will be able to improve security, improve efficiency and improve data information flow and intelligence on people entering and leaving the UK. The introduction of high-tech e-Borders will be combined with the phasing in of biometric passport-based ID cards to increase substantially our knowledge of who is coming in and out of the country.
	We have already implemented biometrics operations in visa posts in Sri Lanka and East Africa; new operations began in Vietnam, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Netherlands in November 2005. As a result, Biometric Match data is available to Entry Clearance Officers in these countries before a decision is taken. By 2008, all those entering the UK on a visa will have been fingerprinted and digitally photographed. Border Control staff are working with the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) to identify and provide authentication and verification of biometrically enabled travel documents.
	As set out earlier, we have worked with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish an international database of individuals whose behaviour gives cause for concern.
	Public inquiry
	In addition to work on the 12 point plan, I have given careful consideration to the views of those who have asked the Government to establish a foil public inquiry into the atrocities of 7 July. The Government do not believe that such an inquiry would add to our understanding of the causes of those atrocities, in particular when there are Parliamentary and other inquiries underway into these and related events. Additionally, to establish one would be to divert the attention of our police and security services during an extended period of time when they are still actively engaged in both the murder investigation which continues and the detection and prevention of further atrocities.
	However, I believe that it is important to set out clearly an authoritative account or "narrative" of what happened before and around 7 July. Accordingly my Department will develop such a narrative which we intend should be published in due course. In doing so, they will work closely with the police and security services. In making final decisions on the content of the narrative to be published we will of course have due regard to the need not to compromise intelligence sources or put at risk possible prosecutions.

Tony McNulty: An action plan containing all 54 recommendations from the investigation carried out by Stephen Shaw into the allegations contained in the BBC documentary, "Detention Undercover: the Real Story" has been compiled and is being published today. The recommendations are aimed at strengthening management, improving the monitoring of people at centres across the detention estate and improving staffs attitude towards detainees.
	We have now implemented 30 of the recommendations and any outstanding recommendations relating specifically to Oakington will be implemented by March 2006. All contractors who operate centres under contract to the immigration and nationality directorate have taken on board those recommendations not aimed specifically at Oakington to ensure consistency across the detention estate. All remaining recommendations will be implemented by October 2006.
	We have always made it clear that there is absolutely no place for racism anywhere in our society, and particularly within the immigration system. Immigration staff will continue to work closely with the contractors to ensure that all those who are detained are treated with dignity and respect.

Malcolm Wicks: I announced in my written statement of 21 July that I was setting up an independent external review of the handling of the Department's coal health compensation schemes. This followed a series of press articles raising concerns about various aspects of the schemes.
	The terms of reference for the review were:
	To review the integrity of the administration of the scheme for dealing with coal health claims; and to identify any specific measures needed to improve the administration of the scheme; to consider whether there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent, detect and pursue fraud while ensuring the fair and timely settlement of claims; and to make recommendations accordingly to Ministers and/or the accounting officer.
	The review was undertaken by a team led by Stephen Boys Smith, a former senior official at the Home Office.
	I am publishing today the report of the review. I have placed the report in the Libraries of both Houses and it is available on the Department's website at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth/.
	I am grateful to Stephen Boys Smith and the review team for producing a focused report on what are complicated issues.
	The Coal Schemes were initially set up to discharge very substantial liabilities, inherited by my Department from British Coal, for industrial injuries suffered by miners. In total we estimate they will result in payment to miners and their estates of up to £5 billion in compensation. We are about halfway through the schemes and more than £2.8 billion has been paid out in compensation so far. As the report notes, and as Members in coal mining constituencies will be aware, significant sums have been paid out in the coal areas equivalent to around 3.5 per cent. of local annual income. Current expenditure is nearly £2 million a day.
	In short, I think that the Government is fully facing up to its obligations to discharge these liabilities. Given the scale of the task, it is important that there is confidence that the schemes are being well run. I am therefore pleased to take from the report the assurance that:
	the administration of the schemes is basically sound although there are lessons to be learned about how the schemes were put into operation;
	that, aside from continuing efficiency improvements, no major changes are needed to improve the running of the schemes; and
	that the fraud procedures in place are appropriate.
	The report also rejects the argument that the Union of Democratic Mineworkers were granted more favourable terms over other parties and confirms that arrangements with the UDM effectively provided identical compensation to that under the "Agreements with the Claimants Group".
	The report also makes a number of specific recommendations. The Department fully accepts those recommendations which are directed at it and will follow them through in the months ahead. I will report to the House as appropriate on this.
	I wish to comment at this point, however, on the report's specific conclusions and recommendations in three areas, namely the initial design of the scheme; the issue of the costs of administering the scheme, including legal costs; and the issue of transparency.
	On the basic design of the schemes, the report concludes that the arrangements put in place in the late 1990s were not the best way to administer compensation for so many people; and it goes on to recommend that, were a similar case to arise in future, the Government "should very carefully examine alternative ways of proceeding".
	I agree with this recommendation.
	When the basic groundwork for the current schemes was put in place in the late 1990s, no one knew that we would have anything like as many as 700,000 claims under the schemes; and, in particular, that we would have so many relatively low value claims. The existing schemes are now well established and we have introduced radical changes to the lung disease scheme in the last twelve months to speed up the processing of significant numbers of claims.
	Any further substantive changes to the existing schemes would run the risk of delaying the payment of claims which would be to no one's benefit. Moreover, given that we are in the last few years of the current schemes now is not the time for further redesign. But were we to face such circumstances again, we would undoubtedly want to think long and hard about whether there are better alternatives.
	The second key issue which the report raises is the question of costs and solicitors' costs in particular.
	In commenting on this, I should first make clear the considerable contribution to the running of the scheme that has been made by the various firms of solicitors involved. The schemes are complex; and it is entirely right and proper that miners and their families should have professional legal support through this process, funded by the Government under the legal obligations we inherited from British Coal.
	But the report nonetheless points out that the legal cost structures were largely negotiated, along with the agreements themselves, at a time when the anticipated volumes of cases under the schemes were considerably lower than has proved to be the case. It would be wrong not to recognise that higher than anticipated volumes of cases undoubtedly bring opportunities for batch processing and reduced costs per case. The report also notes that not every claim will always require the assistance of qualified legal professionals and that the cost to public funds "does not now necessarily reflect the more routine nature of the work". The report recommends, therefore, that we consider whether there is more to be done in this area, with the aim of ensuring that legal costs more accurately reflect the nature of the work actually undertaken.
	This is an issue the Department is already actively pursuing. In particular, we believe that the new "fast-track" approach we have implemented this year for the lung disease scheme should require significantly less input by solicitors and should therefore incur considerably reduced costs.
	We have argued that case with the solicitors' representatives and, indeed, before the High Court. We have now taken the issue to the Court of Appeal. I do not think it appropriate to comment in detail at this stage. But significant sums in legal costs—perhaps up to £200 million of taxpayers money—are at stake.
	There are also other areas where we have yet to reach agreement with the claimants' solicitors on costs and we will be pursuing these equally vigorously to ensure they reflect work done and a reasonable level of return.
	More generally, I regret that legal costs have become the source of such contention. It is right that solicitors are properly rewarded for the work they have done. But claimants representatives will recognise that it does no good whatsoever to the reputation of themselves or their profession if they are perceived in the press and elsewhere, rightly or wrongly, as being primarily motivated by fee earning opportunities.
	In this context, the report also discusses the concern that in some cases solicitors have taken money from claimants' compensation to cover costs even though legal costs are met by the Government, and that, again in some cases, union fees have been deducted from compensation. Both issues are discussed in the report in some detail.
	Clearly, it would be wholly unacceptable for deductions to be made from any compensation payment without the claimant's agreement, though the report notes that, as far as they were aware, there were no examples of that happening. But the report equally suggests that in some cases, claimants appear to have been invited to agree to make such contributions without it being crystal clear to them that such donations were a matter for their choice and that other solicitors would not seek to make them. That would strike me, to say the least, as questionable.
	These are essentially matters about conduct within the legal profession and the Department has no direct role. We have, however, raised the issues with the Law Society in the past and will continue to make clear to them the importance of taking these issues forward rigorously and proactively. There is again legal action in prospect, though not involving the Department. The report does however make a specific recommendation that, subject to the outcome of any legal action in this area, the legal profession should take forward the issue of claimants who were not made fully aware that they were free to use solicitors who did not make any deductions. The report calls on the legal profession to take this forward. I urge them to do so—and I will follow up this issue with the Law Society.
	Third, we have also taken steps immediately to address the recommendation about greater availably of information about the schemes. We have already put on the website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth/ the claims handling agreements, including the UDM agreements, and the latest reports to the courts on progress of the schemes—which cover a lot of detail. We will consider what further information might be added and would welcome input from interested parties about what additional information they would find helpful.
	Although it is not dealt with within the report, I can also report separately to the House that the Serious Fraud Office has now confirmed to my Department that, while their investigations are continuing, their investigation is not now focusing on any suspected fraud against the Department.

James Plaskitt: I would like to expand upon the Pre-Budget Report 2005 announcements on the treatment of capital in the discretionary Social Fund.
	The Government have already announced a number of significant improvements to the budgeting loan scheme to take effect from April 2006, which will amount to an increase in finding of £210 million over three years. There will be further publicity about these for customers and advisers nearer April.
	In addition, to ensure that budgeting loan recipients are not penalised for having small amounts of savings, Pre-Budget Report 2005 announced that the capital allowances available to budgeting loan applicants would be increased from April 2006. The current rules mean that capital of up to £500 (for people of working age) or up to £1,000 (for pensioners) is ignored when deciding whether a budgeting loan should be awarded and the amount of the loan. Capital in excess of £500/£1,000 will be offset against the amount of loan sought. From April 2006 the allowances will increase to £1,000 (people of working age) and £2,000 (pensioners).
	The crisis loan scheme works differently to the budgeting loan scheme, with all resources available to the applicant taken into account when deciding whether a loan can be made. There is no capital allowance and one will not be introduced.
	The Government are also currently exploring the scope to make early improvements to the community care grant scheme, to tighten its focus on the cases with the strongest case for help. This currently operates the same capital allowances as the budgeting loan scheme and we will consider whether the same change or any other change should be made to the treatment of capital as part of this work.